TANSTAAFL. Should someone say they are going to give you something for free, whether you want it or not, and force you to take advantage of the offer, you should immediately create distance, shift into Orange and look for the threat to justify going to Condition Red...... 'cause there ain't noplace left to run.

It pretty much is a no win scenario, but to me more like a choice between letting the ship explode, or try to keep it limping along in hopes of a possible rescue.

The GOP isn't going to learn anything by liberty minded people bowing out of politics, in fact, that's a guarantee that no one will listen to us. All the GOP is going to learn from this is that libertarian votes aren't reliable, and they will feel further emboldened to ignore them.

There isn't necessarily a cadre of people who sit in a cigar filled room and think up nominees. Their are the party hacks, but if they got to pick the nominee, it would have been Romney. For some crazy reason, voters like John McCain, and so he's the nominee.

I'm not going to get all bent out of shape like a lot of people, about folks who want to sit this one out, because I can't exactly blame them. But I do want people to realize that the more liberty minded people sit out, the more we'll be marginalized politically. We need to be mobilized for the next popularity contest, or the result will be exactly the same as it was this time.

"In your efforts to reduce government, aim for zero. If you ever actually get there and don't like what you find, I promise that it'll be the easiest thing in the world to have another one installed the very next morning."

You mean, like the same way they take for granted and all-but-ignore-save-talk the gun-owner vote?

I disagree. The GOP had *better* learn they have to court the libertarian and gunnie vote. They will not learn that if we are "reliable."

If gun owners bolt the coalition, it will make them lose... for a while. One of three things will happen:

1. Gun owners are reminded of what is wrought by the rule of the urban left, and go running back to papa.

2. The republicans broaden their coalition in another direction to reform an electoral majority, that doesn't involve the gun vote.

3. The republicans come crawling back to us and say they are sorry.

That's in the order I think is likely to happen. Item number three is very unlikely, because there's not a cadre of people out there deciding who the candidate is going to be. If we're not pushing pro-gun candidates through the primary systems, or getting ourselves in positions to pull the levers of power, there's no reason for anyone to pay attention to us. Those who sit outside of the process don't get their issues and candidates pushed because no one is pushing for them.

It's rather like a disgruntled employee trying to sabotage some factory machine by removing a cog from it and taking it home. It might shut down production for a short period of time, but someone will probably come along and fix it. Will the factory address the issue that upset the employee enough to brea the machine? Or just find someone else to do the job?

Sebastian, I know your opinion. I am well aware of your opinion, you have said it many times. However, opinions are like something else that we all have.

I disagree with you. Gun owners are a sizable contingent and if we make ourselves felt things will change.

However, sadly there are many gun-owners upon whom the chains rest lightly. You are one of them. You appear to like "reasonable restrictions" and I suspect that if you were asked to vote on repealing the GCA of '68 you would vote against repeal.

Do you have a line in the sand?

Oh, and I am willing to bet that McCain's support for gun rights will evaporate once the elections are over. (I only bet on sure things.)

As far as voters liking McCain. THose who don't know much about him listen to the spin. The gun rights community (who ought to be better) however were unable to pick a candidate to get behind. THe appeasers liked Thompson, and the non-appeasers thought Paul to be the best choice.

meh

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is what?

Respectfully, the elections always were a Kobayashi Maru Scenario. My Dad isn't sure if it were during Ike or Kennedy vs Nixon that he heard the "No matter who wins...We lose" comment. My teachers some of them said that might date back to Hoover.

However, sadly there are many gun-owners upon whom the chains rest lightly. You are one of them. You appear to like "reasonable restrictions" and I suspect that if you were asked to vote on repealing the GCA of '68 you would vote against repeal.

I would be entirely in favor of rolling federal gun control back to, I don't know, say 1901. Feel free to make all the assumptions about me you want Gregg, but reality is very different from what you wish it to be. Gun owners are very large in number, but the vast majority aren't voting based on that issue, and a very large number of them are OK with gun control laws that don't affect them. Only a very small percentage are "gun voters" and even a smaller percentage of those are activists.

What the hell do you propose to do, Gregg, to turn the ship around? And how exactly are we going to do that if all we're going to do is complain about how much the state of things sucks?

Oh, and I am willing to bet that McCain's support for gun rights will evaporate once the elections are over. (I only bet on sure things.)

I've never known John McCain to be a panderer. If anything, he's a stubborn pain in the ass who sticks by his convictions even when the vast majority of his base thinks he's being an asshole. I have many problems with him. I did not want him to be the nominee. But he is, and now I have a choice between voting for Obama the Socialist Messiah, or John McCain.

John McCain has a Brady Campaign rating of 17%. John Kerry's rating is 100%. Barack Obama's rating is 100%, though he got that for one vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Hillary also has a 100% rating. It's possible McCain will suddenly become 100% after his election, but unlikely. His administration would probably be like Bush's on guns, which is to say not as good as we would like, but gun rights has fared well under Bush. Would it have under Al Gore? Or 100% Brady rated John Kerry?

Keep in mind that no other candidate has any chance of winning, given how we elect presidents. Even if every passionate gun owner voted third party, the best outcome we can hope for is that it puts Obama in the White House. If Bill Richardson had won the D ticket, I'd probably feel a lot better about sticking it to the GOP this election, but not with those two. No way.

"I love my country so much that I'll screw it by encouraging the GOP to keep nominating tools like John McCain."

Because it's ever so much better to throw the country to the likes of Obama or Hillary... perhaps there's not a lot of difference between Captain Queeg and the other two, but there wasn't much difference between Secretariat & Sham on May 5th 1973. Sometimes a little difference can make for a huge change in outcome. I'd rather dig out from under 4 to 8 years of McCain than a similar amount of time under the Donks.

The answer is not to have a snit and sit this one out, but to bust ass on organizing to get actual conservatives elected. At this point in this election cycle, this means focusing on the Congress. The mischief that 1600 Pennsylvania can do is nothing compared to what the folks in the Capitol Building can. Now the fun really starts in either 2012 or 2016 (depending on how things go this year) when we should hit the ground running on getting a true conservative in the White House. I'm leaning towards Bobby Jindal, myself.

(Heh. Verification word is "gopau". I'd say that Bobby is gold for the Republicans...)

That's shaping up to look like a good choice. He should be ripe by the time the 2016 cycle comes around. I think Obama is beatable, but if he does win, I think he's likely to be a one termer. He won't have the circumstantial luck Clinton did, and he's liable to make a lot of amateurish mistakes due to his inexperience in national politics. So if Jindal isn't quite aged enough to pop the cork on him in 2012, do we try with Fred again?